SECTION 1.

 The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:

(a) The immigration consequences of criminal convictions have a particularly strong impact in California. One out of every four persons living in the state is foreign-born. One out of every two children lives in a household headed by at least one foreign-born person. The majority of these children are United States citizens. It is estimated that recently 50,000 parents of children who are United States citizens in California were deported in a period of a little over two years. Once a person is deported, especially after a criminal conviction, it is extremely unlikely that he or she ever is permitted to return.

(b) Avoiding deportations also would result in significant budget savings associated with the economic and social disruptions caused by deportation, which can include the following: the loss of a family’s primary wage earner, which can make the family more reliant on the social services safety net and public health insurance programs; the lost tax revenue from the deported worker; the placement of children in foster care; the loss of the family home to foreclosure; and disruption in children’s school attendance.

(c) In Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010), the United States Supreme Court held that the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires defense counsel to advise noncitizen defendants regarding the potential immigration consequences of their criminal cases. California courts have long held that defense counsel must investigate and advise regarding the immigration consequences of the available depositions, and should, when consistent with the goals of and informed consent of the defendant, and as consistent with professional standards, defend against adverse immigration consequences (People v. Soriano, 194 Cal.App.3d 1470 (1987), People v. Barocio, 216 Cal.App.3d 99 (1989), People v. Bautista, 115 Cal.App.4th 229 (2004)). In 2015, California enacted Assembly Bill 1343 (Thurmond), adding Sections 1016.2 and 1016.3 to the Penal Code, which codified the holding of Padilla v. Kentucky and the holdings of the California court decisions that defense counsel must provide a noncitizen defendant with affirmative and competent advice on the immigration consequences of a proposed disposition and, when appropriate, defend against those consequences.

(d) Providing accurate advice to noncitizen defendants on immigration consequences at the time of plea will result in significant budget savings by unclogging the criminal courts. Currently, defenders without adequate resources must seek frequent continuances, as they seek to obtain an analysis. Moreover, desperate immigrants who were not adequately advised at plea, and who only later discover that the plea is a basis for deportation and permanent separation from family, are returning to California courts with time-consuming motions to overturn their convictions based upon this failure and to replead their cases. They are within their rights. On March 27, 2017, the California Supreme Court reaffirmed that defense counsel’s failure to provide accurate advice on the immigration consequences of a proposed plea is a basis to vacate the conviction (People v. Patterson, 2 Cal.5th 885). In the last two years, California voters and the Legislature have passed laws that provide efficient vehicles to eliminate convictions that were legally invalid due to lack of information about immigration consequences, including subdivision (b) of Section 18.5 of the Penal Code, and Sections 1203.43 and 1473.7 of the Penal Code. By providing resources to defenders, the Legislature will enable public defenders, who are government employees, to meet the Sixth Amendment requirements set out in cases such as Padilla and Patterson, and it will stem the flow of postconviction relief cases coming back to the courts.

(e) With an accurate understanding of immigration consequences, many noncitizen defendants are able to plead to a conviction and sentence that satisfy the prosecution and court but that have no, or fewer, adverse immigration consequences than the original charge.

(f) Providing defense counsel with access to individual consultation, written resources, and training on immigration-related matters will ensure that the counsel’s clients receive equal treatment under the law and are properly advised of the immigration consequences of their cases and can make informed choices.

(g) Defendants who are misadvised or not advised at all of the immigration consequences of criminal charges often suffer irreparable damage to their current or potential lawful immigration status, resulting in penalties such as mandatory detention, deportation, and permanent separation from close family.

(h) Once in removal proceedings, a noncitizen may be transferred to immigration detention facilities across the country. Many criminal offenses trigger mandatory detention, so that the person may not request bond. In immigration proceedings, there is no court-appointed right to counsel, and the majority of detained immigrants go unrepresented. Immigration judges often lack the power to consider whether the person should remain in the United States in light of equitable factors such as serious hardship to United States citizen family members, length of time living in the United States, or rehabilitation.